I just passed a homeless person standing on the corner of Crossley and Ramon roads in Palm Springs. As I drove past, it dawned on me that I had seen four others during my errand run.

I didn’t consciously notice the first four. They were just part of the background of life in our valley.

That is so sad.

A friend of mine, because of extensive drug use, had to have all his teeth extracted and replaced. This friend had the resources to pay for it. How many of our homeless neighbors are suffering with rotten teeth, among other things? And yet, our kind, compassionate valley is going to spend $100 million to build a bike path called the CV Link with millions more needed each year it operates.

Don’t we realize that $100 million, spent the right way, could actually solve the homeless problem here? This is absurd!

The writers of “Boxer trying to flip Congress” (Desert Sun front page, May 6) oriented their article by musing how “middle-class” and “modest” the cost of former Sen. Barbara Boxer’s home may be and what defines a “limo.” The setup, presumably, was to call into question the veracity of how budget decisions are made at PAC for a Change.

Not until two-thirds through the lengthy article did the writers cite a Campaign Legal Center official who stated that as a new PAC and in the ascent stage of this campaign year, it was too early to draw conclusions about how PAC for Change’s tally can be judged. And only toward the end of the writing, it reported that “at the core, all the work she (Boxer) is doing is an attempt get people politically engaged and to the polls . . . regardless of who they support.” That would seem to me to be the lead, rather than the price of her house.

I can only assume we will soon know the price of Mr. Koch’s Indian Wells home and how his PAC defines a “limo” ride.

The flaw in your – and City Hall’s -- argument for rejecting Measure C is the failure to recognize and act on the fact that residential neighborhoods are generally zoned for single-family use, and most short-term rentals operate as de facto hotels in violation of zoning. The city is trying to find “work-arounds” so (as you note) “… those who rightfully want to enjoy their own homes in peace no longer feel under siege.” But we already know the solution: shut down (most) STRs in residential neighborhoods that were never zoned for hotels.

We have yet to see any credible report that supports the “sky is falling” claim that the Palm Springs economy will suffer irreparable harm if Measure C passes, and the city’s disregard for quality of life issues for residents is very concerning. The city’s recent mailer opposing Measure C makes numerous financial claims of negative outcomes but fails to mention a single benefit should Measure C pass. Really?

Our intention of selling our condo and buying a single-family house is on hold for fear of ending up near STRs. STRs are fine in appropriate locations that conform to zoning regulations; otherwise, Palm Springs is on the wrong track.

My daughter and her husband purchased a home in Palm Springs about 1½ years ago. They chose Palm Springs because they could access it easily from San Francisco, where their business was located.

A few months ago, they relocated their business to Austin, Texas, and they are not here as frequently as before. They intend on retiring in Palm Springs. One of the reasons is that it happens to be accessible to family members in Los Angeles and Vancouver, BC.

We love coming here and did so before the home was purchased. Some of the visits are short-term. In all cases none of us are charged rent. For the most part, our daughter and son-in-law are not present when we visit.

We are very conscious of our conduct while here. One of the reasons we come here is the peace and quiet. I suspect there are many families like ours in the Palm Springs Area.

I believe Measure C is discriminatory against the short-term renter. Hopefully, it will not pass.